Search Results

Search found 1638 results on 66 pages for 'multithreading'.

Page 47/66 | < Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >

  • how to emulate thread local storage at user space in C++ ?

    - by vprajan
    I am working on a mobile platform over Nucleus RTOS. It uses Nucleus Threading system but it doesn't have support for explicit thread local storage i.e, TlsAlloc, TlsSetValue, TlsGetValue, TlsFree APIs. The platform doesn't have user space pthreads as well. I found that __thread storage modifier is present in most of the C++ compilers. But i don't know how to make it work for my kind of usage. How does __thread keyword can be mapped with explicit thread local storage? I read many articles but nothing is so clear for giving me the following basic information will __thread variable different for each thread ? How to write to that and read from it ? does each thread has exactly one copy of the variable ? following is the pthread based implementation: pthread_key_t m_key; struct Data : Noncopyable { Data(T* value, void* owner) : value(value), owner(owner) {} int* value; }; inline ThreadSpecific() { int error = pthread_key_create(&m_key, destroy); if (error) CRASH(); } inline ~ThreadSpecific() { pthread_key_delete(m_key); // Does not invoke destructor functions. } inline T* get() { Data* data = static_cast<Data*>(pthread_getspecific(m_key)); return data ? data->value : 0; } inline void set(T* ptr) { ASSERT(!get()); pthread_setspecific(m_key, new Data(ptr, this)); } How to make the above code use __thread way to set & get specific value ? where/when does the create & delete happen? If this is not possible, how to write custom pthread_setspecific, pthread_getspecific kind of APIs. I tried using a C++ global map and index it uniquely for each thread and retrieved data from it. But it didn't work well.

    Read the article

  • A generic C++ library that provides QtConcurrent functionality?

    - by Lucas
    QtConcurrent is awesome. I'll let the Qt docs speak for themselves: QtConcurrent includes functional programming style APIs for parallel list processing, including a MapReduce and FilterReduce implementation for shared-memory (non-distributed) systems, and classes for managing asynchronous computations in GUI applications. For instance, you give QtConcurrent::map() an iterable sequence and a function that accepts items of the type stored in the sequence, and that function is applied to all the items in the collection. This is done in a multi-threaded manner, with a thread pool equal to the number of logical CPU's on the system. There are plenty of other function in QtConcurrent, like filter(), filteredReduced() etc. The standard CompSci map/reduce functions and the like. I'm totally in love with this, but I'm starting work on an OSS project that will not be using the Qt framework. It's a library, and I don't want to force others to depend on such a large framework like Qt. I'm trying to keep external dependencies to a minimum (it's the decent thing to do). I'm looking for a generic C++ framework that provides me with the same/similar high-level primitives that QtConcurrent does. AFAIK boost has nothing like this (I may be wrong though). boost::thread is very low-level compared to what I'm looking for. I know C# has something very similar with their Parallel Extensions so I know this isn't a Qt-only idea. What do you suggest I use?

    Read the article

  • Minimizing Java Thread Context Switching Overhead

    - by binil
    I have a Java application running on Sun 1.6 32-bit VM/Solaris 10 (x86)/Nahelem 8-core(2 threads per core). A specific usecase in the application is to respond to some external message. In my performance test environment, when I prepare and send the response in the same thread that receives the external input, I get about 50 us advantage than when I hand off the message to a separate thread to send the response. I use a ThreadPoolExecutor with a SynchronousQueue to do the handoff. In your experience what is the acceptable delay between scheduling a task to a thread pool and it getting picked up for execution? What ideas had worked for you in the past to try improve this?

    Read the article

  • Thread-safe blocking queue implementation on .NET

    - by Shrike
    Hello. I'm looking for an implementation of thread-safe blocking queue for .NET. By "thread-safe blocking queue" I mean: - thread-safe access to a queue where Dequeue method call blocks a thread untill other thread puts (Enqueue) some value. By the moment I'v found this one: http://www.eggheadcafe.com/articles/20060414.asp (But it's for .NET 1.1). Could someone comment/criticize correctness of this implementation. Or suggest some another one. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Why is volatile not considered useful in multithreaded C or C++ programming?

    - by Michael E
    As demonstrated in this answer I recently posted, I seem to be confused about the utility (or lack thereof) of volatile in multi-threaded programming contexts. My understanding is this: any time a variable may be changed outside the flow of control of a piece of code accessing it, that variable should be declared to be volatile. Signal handlers, I/O registers, and variables modified by another thread all constitute such situations. So, if you have a global int foo, and foo is read by one thread and set atomically by another thread (probably using an appropriate machine instruction), the reading thread sees this situation in the same way it sees a variable tweaked by a signal handler or modified by an external hardware condition and thus foo should be declared volatile (or, for multithreaded situations, accessed with memory-fenced load, which is probably a better a solution). How and where am I wrong?

    Read the article

  • What would happen if a same file being read and appended at the same time(python programming)?

    - by Shane
    I'm writing a script using two separate thread one doing file reading operation and the other doing appending, both threads run fairly frequently. My question is, if one thread happens to read the file while the other is just in the middle of appending strings such as "This is a test" into this file, what would happen? I know if you are appending a smaller-than-buffer string, no matter how frequently you read the file in other threads, there would never be incomplete line such as "This i" appearing in your read file, I mean the os would either do: append "This is a test" - read info from the file; or: read info from the file - append "This is a test" to the file; and such would never happen: append "This i" - read info from the file - append "s a test". But if "This is a test" is big enough(assuming it's a bigger-than-buffer string), the os can't do appending job in one operation, so the appending job would be divided into two: first append "This i" to the file, then append "s a test", so in this kind of situation if I happen to read the file in the middle of the whole appending operation, would I get such result: append "This i" - read info from the file - append "s a test", which means I might read a file that includes an incomplete string?

    Read the article

  • Progressbar behaves strangely

    - by wanderameise
    I just created an application in C# that uses a thread which polls the UART for a receive event. If data is received an event is triggered in my main thread (GUI) and a progress bar is controlled via PerformStep() method (of course, I previously set the Max value accordingly). PerformStep is invoked using the following expression to handle cross threading this.Invoke((Action)delegate{progressBar2.PerformStep();}) When running this application the progressbar never hits its final value. It stops at 80%. When debugging and stopping at the line mentioned above, everything works fine using single steps. I have no idea what is going one! Start read thread on main thread: pThreadWrite = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ReadThread)); pThreadWrite.Start(); Read Thread: private void ReadThread() { while(1) { if (ReceiveEvent) { FlashProgressBar(); } } } Event that is triggered in main thread: private void FlashProgressBar() { this.Invoke((Action)delegate { progressBar2.PerformStep();}); } (It's a simplified representation of my code) It seems as if the internal progress is faster than the visual one.

    Read the article

  • C# Alternating threads

    - by Mutoh
    Imagine a situation in which there are one king and n number of minions submissed to him. When the king says "One!", one of the minions says "Two!", but only one of them. That is, only the fastest minion speaks while the others must wait for another call of the king. This is my try: using System; using System.Threading; class Program { static bool leaderGO = false; void Leader() { do { lock(this) { //Console.WriteLine("? {0}", leaderGO); if (leaderGO) Monitor.Wait(this); Console.WriteLine("> One!"); Thread.Sleep(200); leaderGO = true; Monitor.Pulse(this); } } while(true); } void Follower (char chant) { do { lock(this) { //Console.WriteLine("! {0}", leaderGO); if (!leaderGO) Monitor.Wait(this); Console.WriteLine("{0} Two!", chant); leaderGO = false; Monitor.Pulse(this); } } while(true); } static void Main() { Console.WriteLine("Go!\n"); Program m = new Program(); Thread king = new Thread(() => m.Leader()); Thread minion1 = new Thread(() => m.Follower('#')); Thread minion2 = new Thread(() => m.Follower('$')); king.Start(); minion1.Start(); minion2.Start(); Console.ReadKey(); king.Abort(); minion1.Abort(); minion2.Abort(); } } The expected output would be this (# and $ representing the two different minions): > One! # Two! > One! $ Two! > One! $ Two! ... The order in which they'd appear doesn't matter, it'd be random. The problem, however, is that this code, when compiled, produces this instead: > One! # Two! $ Two! > One! # Two! > One! $ Two! # Two! ... That is, more than one minion speaks at the same time. This would cause quite the tumult with even more minions, and a king shoudln't allow a meddling of this kind. What would be a possible solution?

    Read the article

  • Why wait should always be in synchronized block

    - by diy
    Hi gents, We all know that in order to invoke Object.wait() , this call must be placed in synchronized block,otherwise,IllegalMonitorStateException is thrown.But what's the reason for making this restriction?I know that wait() releases the monitor, but why do we need to explicitly acquire the monitor by making particular block synchronized and then release the monitor by calling wait() ? What is the potential damage if it was possible to invoke wait() outside synch block, retaining it's semantics - suspending the caller thread ? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Java Thread - Synchronization issue

    - by Yatendra Goel
    From Sun's tutorial: Synchronized methods enable a simple strategy for preventing thread interference and memory consistency errors: if an object is visible to more than one thread, all reads or writes to that object's variables are done through synchronized methods. (An important exception: final fields, which cannot be modified after the object is constructed, can be safely read through non-synchronized methods, once the object is constructed) This strategy is effective, but can present problems with liveness, as we'll see later in this lesson. Q1. Is the above statements mean that if an object of a class is going to be shared among multiple threads, then all instance methods of that class (except getters of final fields) should be made synchronized, since instance methods process instance variables?

    Read the article

  • Python Terminated Thread Cannot Restart

    - by Mel Kaye
    Hello, I have a thread that gets executed when some action occurs. Given the logic of the program, the thread cannot possibly be started while another instance of it is still running. Yet when I call it a second time, I get a "RuntimeError: thread already started" error. I added a check to see if it is actually alive using the Thread.is_alive() function, and it is actually dead. What am I doing wrong? I can provide more details as are needed.

    Read the article

  • How do I wait for all other threads to finish their tasks?

    - by Mike
    I have several threads consuming tasks from a queue using something similar to the code below. The problem is that there is one type of task which cannot run while any other tasks are being processed. Here is what I have: while (true) // Threaded code { while (true) { lock(locker) { if (close_thread) return; task = GetNextTask(); // Get the next task from the queue } if (task != null) break; wh.WaitOne(); // Wait until a task is added to the queue } task.Run(); } And this is kind of what I need: while (true) { while (true) { lock(locker) { if (close_thread) return; if (disable_new_tasks) { task = null; } else { task = GetNextTask(); } } if (task != null) break; wh.WaitOne(); } if(!task.IsThreadSafe()) { // I would set this to false inside task.Run() at // the end of the non-thread safe task disable_new_tasks = true; Wait_for_all_threads_to_finish_their_current_tasks(); } task.Run(); } The problem is I don't know how to achive this without creating a mess.

    Read the article

  • Understanding java's native threads and the jvm

    - by Moev4
    I understand that the jvm is itself an application that turns the bytecode of the java executable into native machine code, but when using native threads I have some questions that I just cannot seem to answer. Does every thread create their own instance of the jvm to handle their particular execution? If not then does the jvm have to have some way to schedule which thread it will handle next, if so wouldn't this render the multi-threaded nature of java useless since only one thread can be ran at a time?

    Read the article

  • Cleanest Way to Invoke Cross-Thread Events

    - by Nick
    I find that the .NET event model is such that I'll often be raising an event on one thread and listening for it on another thread. I was wondering what the cleanest way to marshal an event from a background thread onto my UI thread is. Based on the community suggestions, I've used this: // earlier in the code mCoolObject.CoolEvent+= new CoolObjectEventHandler(mCoolObject_CoolEvent); // then private void mCoolObject_CoolEvent(object sender, CoolObjectEventArgs args) { if (InvokeRequired) { CoolObjectEventHandler cb = new CoolObjectEventHandler( mCoolObject_CoolEvent); Invoke(cb, new object[] { sender, args }); return; } // do the dirty work of my method here }

    Read the article

  • throwing exception from APCProc crashes program

    - by lazy_banana
    I started to do some research on how terminate a multithreaded application properly and I found those 2 post(first, second) about how to use QueueUserAPC to signal other threads to terminate. I thought I should give it a try, and the application keeps crashing when I throw the exception from the APCProc. Code: #include <stdio.h> #include <windows.h> class ExitException { public: char *desc; DWORD exit_code; ExitException(char *desc,int exit_code): desc(desc), exit_code(exit_code) {} }; //I use this class to check if objects are deconstructed upon termination class Test { public: char *s; Test(char *s): s(s) { printf("%s ctor\n",s); } ~Test() { printf("%s dctor\n",s); } }; DWORD CALLBACK ThreadProc(void *useless) { try { Test t("thread_test"); SleepEx(INFINITE,true); return 0; } catch (ExitException &e) { printf("Thread exits\n%s %lu",e.desc,e.exit_code); return e.exit_code; } } void CALLBACK exit_apc_proc(ULONG_PTR param) { puts("In APCProc"); ExitException e("Application exit signal!",1); throw e; return; } int main() { HANDLE thread=CreateThread(NULL,0,ThreadProc,NULL,0,NULL); Sleep(1000); QueueUserAPC(exit_apc_proc,thread,0); WaitForSingleObject(thread,INFINITE); puts("main: bye"); return 0; } My question is why does this happen? I use mingw for compilation and my OS is 64bit. Can this be the reason?I read that you shouldn't call QueueApcProc from a 32bit app for a thread which runs in a 64bit process or vice versa, but this shouldn't be the case.

    Read the article

  • Cannot make a static reference to the non-static type MyRunnable

    - by kaiwii ho
    Here is the whole code : import java.util.ArrayList; public class Test{ ThreadLocal<ArrayList<E>>arraylist=new ThreadLocal<ArrayList<E>>(){ @Override protected ArrayList<E> initialValue() { // TODO Auto-generated method stub //return super.initialValue(); ArrayList<E>arraylist=new ArrayList<E>(); for(int i=0;i<=20;i++) arraylist.add((E) new Integer(i)); return arraylist; } }; class MyRunnable implements Runnable{ private Test mytest; public MyRunnable(Test test){ mytest=test; // TODO Auto-generated constructor stub } @Override public void run() { System.out.println("before"+mytest.arraylist.toString()); ArrayList<E>myarraylist=(ArrayList<E>) mytest.arraylist.get(); myarraylist.add((E) new Double(Math.random())); mytest.arraylist.set(myarraylist); System.out.println("after"+mytest.arraylist.toString()); } // TODO Auto-generated method stub } public static void main(String[] args){ Test test=new Test<Double>(); System.out.println(test.arraylist.toString()); new Thread(new MyRunnable(test)).start(); new Thread(new MyRunnable(test)).start(); System.out.println(arraylist.toString()); } } my questions are: 1\ why the new Thread(new MyRunnable(test)).start(); cause the error: Cannot make a static reference to the non-static type MyRunnable ? 2\ what is the static reference refer to right here? thx in advanced

    Read the article

  • Multi-threading concept and lock in c#

    - by Neeraj
    I read about lock, though not understood nothing at all. My question is why do we use a un-used object and lock that and how this makes something thread-safe or how this helps in multi-threading ? Isn't there other way to make thread-safe code. public class test { private object Lock { get; set; } ... lock (this.Lock) { ... } ... } Sorry is my question is very stupid, but i don't understand, although i've used it many times.

    Read the article

  • Using locks inside a loop

    - by Xaqron
    // Member Variable private readonly object _syncLock = new object(); // Now inside a static method foreach (var lazyObject in plugins) { if ((string)lazyObject.Metadata["key"] = "something") { lock (_syncLock) { if (!lazyObject.IsValueCreated) lazyObject.value.DoSomething(); } return lazyObject.value; } } Here I need synchronized access per loop. There are many threads iterating this loop and based on the key they are looking for, a lazy instance is created and returned. lazyObject should not be created more that one time. Although Lazy class is for doing so and despite of the used lock, under high threading I have more than one instance created (I track this with a Interlocked.Increment on a volatile shared int and log it somewhere). The problem is I don't have access to definition of Lazy and MEF defines how the Lazy class create objects. My questions: 1) Why the lock doesn't work ? 2) Should I use an array of locks instead of one lock for performance improvement ?

    Read the article

  • When Should I Use Threads?

    - by cam
    As far as I'm concerned, the ideal amount of threads is 3: one for the UI, one for CPU resources, and one for IO resources. But I'm probably wrong. I'm just getting introduced to them, but I've always used one for the UI and one for everything else. When should I use threads and how? How do I know if I should be using them?

    Read the article

  • OGNL thread safety

    - by Dewfy
    I'm going to reuse OGNL library out of Struts2 scope. I have rather large set of formulas, that is why I would like to precompile all of them: Ognl.parseExpression(expressionString); But I'm not sure if precompiled expression can be used in multi-thread environment. Does anybody knows if it can be used?

    Read the article

  • How do I know if a boost thread is done ?

    - by jules
    I am using boost::thread to process messages in a queue. When a first message comes I start a message processing thread. When a second message comes I check if the message processing thread is done. if it is done I start a new one if it is not done I don nothing. How do I know if the thread is done ? I tried with joinable() but it is not working, as when the thread is done, it is still joinable. I also tried to interrupt the process at once, and add an interruption point at the end of my thread, but it did not work. Thanks

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >